Be specific. On the one hand, “Freedom of Religion”. Who are you to tell me how and who with I can worship….or when?
On the other hand, “Zoning”…..and the outrage of a few citizens…….Who happen to live near the office park where this “Church” conducts it’s “services”. Who are they to say where such services can be held? These “church services” are behind closed doors, not in public.
I dunno. I doubt that the folks in the neighborhood will win this one.
It is “Slippery Slope”…..if you can decide that a community can define how or what a “church” is or how they “worship” then you have a mandated religion. If this were a Mosque of a Synagogue being opposed, the City would lose immediately. But instead, a bunch of bible thumping churchgoers believe they have the right to define other peoples behavior when it has no impact on their own lives……and that they can define what a “Church” and “worship” is.
I foresee this getting ugly. And I see a potential Supreme Court case here. Not my thing, but I really don’t want the State to get to decide how anyone’s church must conduct itself….
Of course, you can always call the BATF for a ruling….
This is a tough one. I guess the cover charge makes it more a club than church. I think the … Entity… Is operating through a loophole. In the end it is not up to the government to decide what/whom we should worship. I would err on the side of liberty.
Of course, as a church they are running what might be a sex club tav free. I suspect this is what really angers the city.